Vol 5 (1996): 387-397. Detection of bias in animal model pedigree indices of heifers Martin Lidauer and Esa Mäntysaari Agricultural Research Centre ofFinland, Institute ofAnimal Production, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland The objective of the study was to test whether the pedigree indices (PI) of heifers are biased, and if so, whether the magnitude of the bias varies in different groups of heifers. Therefore, two animal model evaluations with two different data sets were computed. Data with all the records from the national evaluation in December 1994 was used to obtain estimated breeding values (EBV) for 305- days’ milk yield and protein yield. In the second evaluation, the Pis were estimated for cows calving the first time in 1993 by excluding all their production records from the data. Three different statis- tics, a simple t-test, the linear regression of EBV on PI, and the polynomial regression of the differ- ence in the predictions (EBV-PI) on PI, were computed for three groups of first parity Ayrshire cows: daughters of proven sires, daughters of young sires, and daughters of bull dam candidates. A practically relevant bias was found only in the Pis for the daughters of young sires. On average their Pis were biased upwards by 0.20 standard deviations (78.8 kg) for the milk yield and by 0.21 standard deviations (2.2 kg) for the protein yield. The polynomial regression analysis showed that the magnitude of the bias in the Pis changed somewhat with the size of the Pis. Key words: Ayrshire, breeding value estimation, milk yield, protein yield, polynomial regression ntroduction New breeding policies give more emphasis on the selection of the best bull dams for breeding as young as possible. In Finland, about five per- cent of the selected bull dams are heifers (Auli Himanen, personal communication). The selec- tion of those heifers is based on the pedigree index (PI), the average of the parents’ estimated breeding values, as they do not have their own test records. An optimal utilization of such breed- ing policies requires accurate and unbiased breeding value estimates for bulls and cows. A considerable increase in the accuracy of the cows' estimated breeding values (EBV) can be achieved if the evaluation is based on an animal model-BLUP (best linear unbiased prediction) methodology. Though the BLUP-estimates are characteristically unbiased, and an animal mod- el utilizes all available data from the relatives, the EBVs can be substantially biased if the model is not correctly specified (e.g., Mäntysaari and Sillanpää 1993, Harbers et al. 1994). Particular- © Agricultural and Food Science in Finland Manuscript received May 1996 387 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND https://www.c-info.fi/en/info/?token=Vk1brEv07gUDnyiV.WYDdOWej2FjobCgcAIlmCQ.GTo5PoCR9TnQ3-IrfCs0PMlO7sLcyYEvZA3VYjyuCbFS84Df1bLsK4d_ZN4JAcZCH2v5t-JSsrdTLZi51crW5htOQGqzJjEFepZo1k2wv8MfRZZDLkXtkk3aTCVCcrh-wSugtcJQMh1NE81ztukgPwaCT8briTZEkacLAUGJid6wgUHUqg3HcnLcFahMuVW3TDW2LSqcQW6njWHhSsB7EnG2QiKwTTaAiaGGOlB_PI--UnTgvzahs73W-jRmPpZjVO6yFdL4oa9j9V1ANm8V71U_UZWnisOcBDs-408 Lidauer, M. & Mäntysaari, E. Detection ofbias in animal modelpedigree indices ofheifers ly the pedigree indices (PI) of young sires are often considerably higher than their future EBVs based on progeny testing (Ferris and Wiggans 1991, Mao et al. 1991, van derWerf et al. 1994, Zhang et al. 1994). One source of the bias can be a heterogeneous intraherd variance, which can be caused by reasons like small herd sizes (Ui- mari and Mäntysaari 1995), or upgrading of the breed, but also if animals of the same herd do not have the same environment; e.g., the superi- or cows could receive more attention from the farmer than their herd mates. A bias in the EBVs can also be caused by the use of inappropriate variance components as discussed by Reverter et al. (1994). In Finland a single trait animal model has been used since 1990for the estimation ofbreed- ing values for dairy cattle (Mäntysaari and Strandén 1991,Strandén and Mäntysaari 1992). Uimari and Mäntysaari (1993) studied the relia- bility of the estimation, and found that the Pis of young sires for 305-days’ protein yield were on average 0.48 standard deviations (5.2 kg) higher than their laterEBVs; a bias, which might have been due to a preferred herd environment for bull dams. A bias which arises from the prob- lem of small herd sizes was addressed by Män- tysaari and Sillanpää (1993). With a redefinition of the herd effect they could reduce the bias in the Pis of young sires by 57%. In a following study to the work of Uimari and Mäntysaari (1993), the same authors (1995) found an up- wardbias in the Pis of young sires of 1.25 stand- ard deviations (13.6 kg) in protein. They ex- plained this considerably larger bias by the dif- ferent set of bulls considered, and the higher heritability (0.30 versus 0.25) used in this study. Similarly to Wilhelm and Mao (1989), they found that the bulls coming from small herds tend to have more upward biased Pis than the bulls coming from larger herds. In those earlier works authors argued that the model still ranked average merit cows accurately, although it had problems with the ranking of bull dams. Based on the results of those studies, important adjust- ments in the herd effect definition of the animal model were introduced to reduce the bias. The objective ofour study was to investigate the magnitude of a possible remaining bias, and whether the bias is larger in the Pis of animals at the extremes. All the earlier Finnish studies have centred on young sire Pis and correspond- ing EBVs. This, because sires’ EBVs based on more than 100 daughters can be considered as a reliable control. In contrast to those works, our study emphasises the bias in the Pis of three dif- ferent types of heifers: (1) daughters of proven sires; (2) daughters of young sires; (3) daugh- ters ofbull dam candidates. Biased Pis of daugh- ters of proven sires would indicate that the bias originated from their dams, since the EBVs of the proven sires can be considered as reliable. Given from earlier studies that the Pis of young sires are biased, we can expect that the Pis of daughters of young sires will have 50% of that bias before they make a record. The third type of heifers was investigated because it is likely that superior cows are treated preferentially, which might cause biased Pis. Three different statistics were applied to test the deviations be- tween the two consecutive evaluations against their expectations. Material and methods To obtain two breeding values for each cow, a PI and an EBV, two different data sets were formed. The data for estimating the more accu- rate breeding values was the same as used in the national evaluation in December 1994. The data contained all available first, second and third lactation records of cows calved between 1978 and 1994 of the three national dairy breeds Ayr- shire, Finnish Friesian and Finncattle. It includ- ed the records of 1 189 692 cows, and through pedigree structures, altogether 1 448 967 cows and 8 844 bulls. A second, reduced data set was constructed from the first data by excluding all records of cows that had calved for the first time after March 1993. A cow with excluded records, whose breeding value was estimated with this 388 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Vol. 5 (1996): 387-397. data set, was treated as if it would be a heifer and hence, its breeding valuebecomes estimated as the average of its parents’ EBVs, i.e. PI. The Pis and the EBVs for 305-days’ milk yield and protein yield were calculated with a single trait animal model using the same statis- tical model as is currently used in the national evaluation. Y„„ =f.+m.+c, + h. + a +p + e....ijklmn i j k / m * n ijklmn where Y ... is the observation n for cow m,ijklmn fixed effects are herd x period of five years x parity group (f,), year x calving season (in ), and parity x calving age x days open group (c k), and random effects are herd x year x parity group (h,), animal (a ; ), permanent environment (p ), and residual (e j)t(mji ). There are 6 calving season class- es per year (February-March, April-May,...), 18 calving age classes (6 per parity) and 6 days open classes. There are two parity groups; one for the first parity and another for the second and third parity. The way the herd effect is modelled has been found to be effective in reducing the pre- diction bias in the bull dam EBVs in Finnish cir- cumstances (Mäntysaari and Sillanpää 1993, Uimari and Mäntysaari 1995). After the seventh round of iteration, the records are multiplicative- ly precorrected for the effects of calving season and parity x calving age. This is done to stand- ardize the variance of records partially in differ- ent calving seasons and parities. The model does not account for non-additive genetic effects be- tween breeds. All breeds are evaluated simulta- neously, and the breed differences are modelled through parental groups. These are defined ac- cording to the breed and the year of birth of the base population animals. For both traits the used variance ratios were the same. The heritability was 0.3, the repeatability was 0.5, and the vari- ance ratio residual / herd-year was 1.82. In the reduced data, 97 247 first parity cows fulfilled the editing rule and their records were excluded. From those, 51 744 Ayrshire cows were used to form three different groups: 1) Cows, which were second crop daughters of proven sires. 2) Cows, which were daughters of young sires. The sires were born after 1988 and had not more than five progeny with records in the reduced data set, but received their first eval- uations with the full data. 3) Cows, which were daughters of bull dam candidates; defined by having their dams’ indices for protein yield more than two standard deviations above the popula- tion mean. The observed bias was estimated as an aver- age difference between the EBV and the PI. Three differentprocedures were applied to judge the significance of the bias: 1. A simple t-test for testing a deviation of the empirical bias from zero. EBV - PI l ~ n a / - Var((EBV - PI)) It was assumed that the differences (EBV- PI) are independently and identically distrib- uted (iid). 2. The linear regression of EBV on PI, as pro- posed by Reverter et al. (1994), which has an expectation of the value 1. K _ Cov(EBV.PI) ®ebv,pi ~ ,nl.Var(Pl) For statistical testing it was assumed that conditionally on PI the EBVs are iid. 3. A polynomial regression analysis was used to test if there is a relationship between the bias and the magnitude of the PI; i.e., are the Pis of superior animals more biased than the Pis of average or below average animals? Therefore three different models were applied: (EBV - PI). = b 0 + b, PI. + e. (1) (EBV - Pl)' = b 0 + b, Pi' + b 2 PF + e. (2) (EBV - Pl)' = b 0 + b, PL + b, PF + b, PP + e, (3) were b 0 is an intercept, b ( , b, and b, are par- tial regression coefficients and e is the residual. Again, it was assumed that the residual is iid. If a difference between EBV and PI would only be caused by Mendelian sampling, one would ex- 389 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Lidauer, M. & Mäntysaari, E. Detection ofbias in animal modelpedigree indices ofheifers Table 1.Means and standard deviations (SD) ofpedigree indices (PI) and estimated breeding values (EB V) for milk yield and protein yield for three groups of first parity Ayrshire cows. Daughters of Daughters of Daughters of bull proven sires young sires dam candidates Number ofcows 34 444 17 128 1010 Number ofsires 319 131 263 Milk yield (kg) PI Mean 413.79 428.47 766.91 SD 242.00 181.40 194.44 EBV Mean 418.17 349.66 760.58 SD 277.94 257.52 255.08 Protein yield (kg) PI Mean 13.38 14.03 25.32 SD 6.23 5.09 4.66 EBV Mean 13.57 11.86 25.48 SD 7.60 7.35 6.88 pect that the intercept and the partial regression coefficients are zero. The reliability of the proven sires’ EBVs (on average r 2 = 0.96) was high enough to assume that the changes in their EBVs had no signifi- cant influence on the polynomial regression anal- ysis for the daughters of proven sires. This did not hold for the daughters of young sires. There- fore, in an additional approach the sire of the daughter (sire.) was included as a fixed effect into the models. (EB V - PI). = sire. + b 0 + b, PL + e. (4) (EBV - Pl)' = sire' +b 0 +b, PI +b 2 PI2 +e. (5) (EB V - Pl)' = sire] +b 0 +b,PL + b 2 PI2 +b, PP + e ' ' (6) Results From the first parity Ayrshire cows, the daugh- ters of proven sires formed the biggest group with a total number of 34 444 cows with 319 different sires (Table 1). A share of 17 128 cows were daughters of 131 different young sires, and 1 010 cows with 263 different sires met the cri- teriön being daughters of bull dam candidates. A group of 627 daughters of proven sires and 211 daughters of young sires also belonged to the daughters of bull dam candidates. In the groupof daughters of proven sires the average differences EBV-PI, i.e. the bias in the Pis, of 4.38 kg in milk and 0.23 kg in protein were statistically significant but very small; 0.01 and 0.02 standard deviations, respectively (Ta- ble 2). On the contrary, for the daughters of young sires a clear upward bias in their Pis, of 78.81 kg in milk and 2.17 kg in protein, was found. The average differences EBV-PI of -6.33 kg in milk and 0.16 kg in protein for the daugh- ters of bull dam candidates were not significant. The regression coefficients differed significant- ly from the expected values in all but one case (Table 2). Only the estimate of protein yield (biebv.pi)~ 0-993) for the daughters of proven sires was not significantly different from one. With a polynomial regression analysis, dependencies between the size of the bias in the Pis and the magnitude of the Pis were found for both traits in each group. Intercepts and partial regression coefficients of the model with the highest, still significant order are listed in Table 3. The linearregression model (1) was sufficient for both the traits in the daughters of bull dam 390 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Vol. 5 (1996): 387-397. Table 2. Mean differences between estimated breeding values (EBV) and pedigree indices (PI), andregres- sion coefficient b fm: m for the two traits, milk yield and protein yield, for three groups of first parity Ayrshire cows. Daughters of proven sires Daughters of young sires Daughters of bull dam candidates Milk yield (kg) EBV-PI Mean SD" 4.38 *** 143.79 -78.81 *** 188.51 -6.33 ns 184.76 0.909 **b. 0.983 *** 0.968 *** ICBV. PII Protein yield (kg) EBV-PI Mean SD 0.23 *** 4.40 -2.17 *** 5.68 0.16“ 5.49 0.895 **b 0.993 "* 0.920 *** IPHV PII Significance levels: *** P < 0,001, ** P < 0.01, ns not significant, a SD: Standard deviation. Table 3. Coefficient of determination (R 2 ), intercepts (b 0) and partial regression coefficients (b J,bJ ) for polynomial regressions of the difference in the predictions (EBV-PI) on PI for the two traits, milk yield and protein yield, for three groups of first parity Ayrshire cows. Daughters of Daughters of Daughters of bull proven sires young sires dam candidates Milk yield (kg) R- 0.0008 0.0013 0.0092 b„ 11.4094*** -53.4989*** 63.4398** b, -o.ol7o*** -0.0967*** -0.0910** b, ns 0.0000744* ns Protein yield (kg) R : 0.0005 0.0053 0.0079 b„ 0.5442*** -0.6176* 2.8159** b, -0.0485*** -0.1497** -0.1050** b, 0.00155*** 0.00246* ns Significance levels: *** P < 0.001, ** P <0.01, * P <0.05, ns not significant. candidates, and for the milk yield in the daugh- ters ofproven sires. Based on theregression, the bias in the Pis for the milk yield for the daugh- ters of bull dam candidates becomes zero when the Pis are 0.4 standard deviations below the mean of the Pis (697 kg), and from there it in- creases 0.091 kg per each unit increase in the PI. In the daughters of proven sires, the bias in the Pis for milk is zero when the Pis are 1.1 standard deviations above the mean of the Pis (671 kg), and from there it increases 0.017 kg per each unit increase in the PI (Figure 1). The quadratic polynomial regression effect in model (2) was significant for the protein yield for the daughters of proven sires, meaning that the bias in the Pis of heifers increased quadrati- cally the further away the Pis were from the mean. As an example of Pis being 2 standard deviations above the mean, the mathematical equation predicts that the future EBVs will be 0.33 kg higher than expected (Table 4). The re- gression model (2) was also significant for both traits in the daughters of young sires (Table 3). For the milk yield, the quadratic polynomial re- 391 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Lidauer, M. & Mäntysaari, E. Detection ofbias in animal modelpedigree indices ofheifers gression (Figure 2) indicates that the Pis 2 stand- ard deviations below the mean were biased by -60 kg, the average Pis were biased by -81 kg and the Pis 2 standard deviations above the mean were biased by -83 kg (Table 4). After the inclu- sion of the sire into the model, the quadratic polynomial regression (5) remained significant only for the milk yield (b ; =-0.0407, P=0.033; b 2=0.0000557, P=0.008). This polynomial sug- gests that the bias in the Pis was not only caused by the sire (Figure 3). The cubic polynomial re- gression model (3) was not significant in any group. Table 4. Difference between estimated breeding value (EBV) and pedigree index (PI) according to the results of the polynomial regression analysis tabulated for different values of PI and different categories of heifers. EBV-PI for 3 different Pi-values (kg) Category of heifers Trait Model* -2 SDb Mean +2 SD h daughters of proven sires milk 1 12.61 4.38 -3.85 protein 2 0.50 0.17 0,33 daughters of young sires milk 2 -59.53 -81.27 -83.43 protein 2 -1.16 -2.23 -2.80 daughters of bull dam milk 1 29.08 -6.33 -41.74 candidates protein 1 1.14 0.16 -0.81 a Model 1: linear regression model, model 2: quadratic regression model. b SD: standard deviation. Fig. 1. Scatterplot of the difference EBV-PI against the values of the Pis for the milk yield (kg) in the daughters of proven sires. The line represents the linear regression of the bias (EBV-PI) on the PI, 392 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Vol 5 (1996): 387-397. Discussion In the study, a clear bias was detected only in the Pis for the daughters of young sires. The Pis overpredicted the EBVs on average by 78.8 kg for the milk yield and by 2.2 kg for the protein yield. This bias is mainly a result of overpre- dicted Pis for young sires, as the Pis of the daughters of proven sires were not considerably biased. Thus, the overprediction in the Pis for young sires is about twice as big as in the Pis for their daughters. The bias in our study was considerably smaller than the one found by Ui- mari and Mäntysaari (1993 and 1995). This might be partially due to a redefinition of the herd effect as described by Mäntysaari and Sil- lanpää (1993). They found that a fixed herd x year x parity group effect would be most effec- tive to reduce the bias, but because the herds are very small it would lead to a situation in which about 20% of the first lactating cows would have no contemporaries in their groups. As a better alternative, periods of five years instead of one year, and a random herd x year X parity group effect were implemented into the model. The EBVs of cows withproven sires differed on average only little from their Pis (Table 2). Due to the higher number of observations, the differences were significant but practically neg- ligible. Hence, when a heifer has a progeny test- ed sire, her PI can be considered as a reliable predictor of her future EBV. On average, the EBVs of the daughters ofbull dam candidates did not significantly differ from their Pis. This was somehow unexpected, since it has been observed in several studies that EBVs of bull dams are biased upwards (e.g. Kuhn et al. 1994, Zhang et al. 1994). The obtained re- sults may reflect the circumstance that the heif- ers ofbull dam candidates were in the same herds as their dams and therefore received the same attention as their dams, since they are expected to become bull dams of the next generation. A similar result has been found by Powell and Fig. 2. Scatterplot of the difference EBV-PI against the val- ues of the Pis for the milk yield (kg) in the daughters of young sires. The curve represents the polynomial regres- sion of the bias (EBV-PI) on the PI. Fig. 3. Scatterplot of the adjusted empirical bias (Bias ~) against the values of the Pis for the milk yield (kg) in the daughters of young sires. The difference EBV-PI was ad- justed by the sire effect; = (EBV-PI), - sire,. The curve represents the polynomial regression ofBias o ~ on the PI based on the following model: =b f) + b,PI, + b2PI 2 , + e,. 393 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Lidauer, M. & Mäntysaari, E. Detection ofbias in animal modelpedigree indices ofheifers Norman (1988). According to their study the daughters of superior dams performed even bet- ter than predicted. The regression coefficients b(£BV pl) were much closer to the expectation compared with the corresponding value of 0.65 found by Uima- ri and Mäntysaari (1995). In the daughters of proven sires, i.e., the group where the Pis were hardly biased at all, the regression coefficient for protein was not significantly different from the expected value, and for milk (0.983) still very close to the expectation. Reverter et al. (1994) claimed that such a condition as the use of inap- propriate variance components can cause this regression to deviate from its expectation. Ui- mari and Mäntysaari (1995) found an over two times larger bias than the one they found in their previous study (Uimari and Mäntysaari 1993) and suggested this to be because of a different heritability (0.30 versus 0.25) used in the evalu- ation and a different set ofbulls considered. They were, however, using the model for the national evalutations computed prior 1993 where a com- mon herd-year effect was applied on all the lac- tations. This ignored the herd x parity interac- tion that was found to be a major reason for the bias in young sires’ Pis (Mäntysaari and Sillan- pää 1993). Therefore, the regression coefficients found in our study suggest that the heritability of 0.30 is appropriate for the current model. The polynomial regression analysis was used to clarify if the obtained results hold for the Pis of animals at the extremes. Though statistically significant regression coefficients were found for both traits in all the three groups, the coefficients of determination were very small (R 2 <0.0092). This means that the magnitude of the bias de- pends somewhat on the size of the PI, but over- all it is of little practical relevance. The fact that significant regressions coefficient were found indicates that the assumptions for the t-test may have been violated, since the differences (EBV- PI) depended on the size of the Pis. The linearregression model (I) was sufficient for both traits in the daughters of bull dam can- didates, and for the milk yield in the daughters of proven sires. This suggests that the Pis of animals at the upper extremes of these groups tended to be biased upwards. To some extent, this might be due to a preferential treatment of the heifers’ dams. Accordingly, for animals at the lower extremes, the Pis tended to underpre- dict the first EBVs. A similar result was found by Powell and Norman (1988). They explained it by the unfortunate environmental conditions of their dams not considered in the estimation (i.e., injuries and diseases). As a consequence, the dams’ EBVs and their daughters’ Pis become underestimated. Note that the regression coeffi- cients of model (1) are consistent with the •W//8 ’ since b / = b(Eßv.pi) - cov(PI,PI)/var(Pl) PII " 'lEBV PI) The coefficients of the quadratic model (2) were significant for the protein yield in the daughters of proven sires, and for both traits in the daughters of young sires. However, the form of the quadratic equation was different. For the daughters of proven sires the upward concavity suggests that the Pis at the extremes underpre- dicted the first EBVs more than the Pis closer to the mean. But again, this bias is practically neg- ligible (Table 4). For the daughters of young sires the bias in milk (Figure 2) was largest for the Pis with a value between the mean (428 kg) and 2 standard deviations above the mean (791 kg). For the milk, the regression coefficients re- mained significant even when the sire was in- cluded (model 5). Then the regression coeffi- cients were clearly smaller and described an upward concavity with its minimum 0.35 stand- ard deviations below the mean (Figure 3). This curve represents the empirical bias adjusted for the sire effect, i.e. adjusted for the amount of bias which can be found in each daughter of the same sire. The concavity gives evidence that to a small extent, the bias in the Pis is due to a bias in dams’ EBVs. At the lower extreme, the curve is in agreement with the findings of Powell and Norman (1988) as cited above. At the upper ex- treme the curve suggests that on average superi- or heifers have performed better than predicted by their dams. The reason why the Pis of the superior heif- ers of proven sires were biased upwards (Figure 394 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Vol. 5 (1996): 387-397. 1) and the Pis of superior heifers of young sires were biased downwards when the bias was ad- justed for the sire effect (model (5), Figure 3) remains unclear. According to the Finnish prac- tice, the daughters ofproven sires descend from better dams, which might partially have received special attention. Hence, the dams’ EBVs and consequently the Pis of their daughters would be biased upwards. For such heifers it is hard to perform according to their expectations or bet- ter, even if they receive preferential treatment as well. In contrast, the heifers of young sires are mainly the first offspring of their dams. For those dams preferential treatment is rather un- likely, since they represent a random sample of the population. By the time when such a heifer starts her first lactation, her dam will be in the third lactation. If the dam has performed excel- lently, naturally, her progeny will receive addi- tional care from the farmer, which enables the daughter to perform better than predicted. In the group of daughters ofyoung sires, none of the coefficients in the models (4), (5) and (6) were statistically significant for the protein yield. As for the milk yield, model (5) indicated a bias in the Pis. It seems that protein yield is not so sensitive to preferential treatment than the milk yield. Conclusions The way the herd effect is modelled for the cur- rent national breeding value estimation has clear- ly reduced the bias in the Pis. Still, it was found that a reflection of the bias, as has been found in the Pis ofyoung sires, can be found in the Pis of their daughters. However, the magnitude of that bias was less than in earlier studies where the herd effect was modelled differently. For the heifers of proven sires, the Pis were found to be reliable predictors of their first EBVs. Only for heifers with sires being un- proved, the Pis overpredicted the EBVs on av- erage by 78.8 kg in the milk yield and 2.2 kg in the protein yield. This bias is likely to be due to biased bull dam EBVs which will cause an over- estimation of the young sires’ breeding values. Hence, selecting outstanding heifers from the daughters of young sires to become bull dams of the next generation remains suspicious. The obtainedEBVs for cows with superior dams con- formed on average with their heifer Pis. That might imply that such animals enjoyed the same preferred environment as their dams, otherwise their first EBVs would have dropped like the first EBVs of the sons of bull dams do. Furthermore, it was shown that the magni- tude of the bias depends slightly on the size of the PI. The analysis indicated some bias in the Pis for heifers at the extremes, when the heifers had a proven sire or when they were daughters ofa bull dam candidate. For heifers with a young sire the bias in the Pis was strongest when their Pis were between the mean and 2 standard devi- ations above the mean. The fact that for all pol- ynomial regressions the coefficient of determi- nation was very small indicates that the depend- ency of the bias on the size of the PI is practi- cally negligible. 395 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Lidauer, M. & Mäntysaari, E. Detection ofbias in animal modelpedigree indices ofheifers References Ferris, T. A. & Wiggans, G.R. 1991. Accuracy of animal model parent evaluations in predicting daughter yield de- viations for Al sampled bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 74, Supplement 1: 265. Abstract. Harbers, A.G.F., Lohuis, M.M. & Dekkers, J.C.M. 1994. Correction for preferential treatment of MOET families by including an environmental correlation in genetic eval- uations. Proceedings of the sth5 th World Congress on Ge- netics Applied to Livestock Production, Guelph, Ontario. Vol. 17: 11-14. Kuhn, M.T., Boettcher, P.J. & Freeman, A.E. 1994. Po- tential biases in predicted transmitting abilities of females from preferential treatment. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 2428-2437. Mäntysaari, E.A. & Sillanpää, M.J. 1993. Bias in pedi- gree indices of dairy bulls: Should the management group effects be fixed and should we use smaller heritability? 44 th Annual Meeting of the European Association for An- imal Production, Aarhus, Denmark. Vol 1: 236-237. Ab- stract. - & Strandén, I. 1991. Animal model evaluation for pro- duction and reproduction traits in Finnish dairy cattle. 42 na Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Aarhus, Denmark. Vol 1: 96-97. Abstract. Mao, 1.L., Dong, M.C. & Meadows, C.E. 1991. Selec- tion of bulls for progeny testing using pedigree indices and characteristics of potential bull-dams’ herds. Jour- nal of Dairy Science 74: 2747-2756. Powell, R.L. & Norman, H.D. 1988. Accuracy of cow in- dexes according to repeatability, evaluation, herd yield, and registry status. Journal of Dairy Science 71: 2232- 2240. Reverter, A., Golden, 8.L., Bourdon, R.M. & Brinks, J.S. 1994. Technical note: Detection of bias in genetic predictions. Journal of Animal Science 72: 34-37. Strandén, I. & Mäntysaari, E.A. 1992. Animal model evaluation in Finland: Experience with two algorithms. Journal of Dairy Science 75: 2017-2022. Uimari, P. & Mäntysaari, E.A. 1993. Repeatability and bias of estimated breeding values for dairy bulls and bull dams calculated from animal model evaluations. Animal Production 57: 175-182. - & Mäntysaari, E.A. 1995. Relationship between bull dam herd characteristics and estimated breeding value of bull. Agricultural Science in Finland 4: 463-472. Werf, J.H.J. van der, Meuwissen, T.H.E. & Jong, G. de. 1994. Effects of correction for heterogeneity of vari- ance on bias and accuracy of breeding value estimation for Dutch dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 77: 3174- SI 84. Wilhelm, A.E. & Mao, I.L. 1989. Relationships between characteristics of herd of bull-dams and predicting trans- mitting ability of young bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 2395-2401. Zhang, W.C., Schaeffer, L.R., Dekkers, J.C.M. & De- boer, H. 1994. Pedigree indexing of young Holstein bulls based on animal model evaluation. Proceedings of the sth5 thWorld Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Pro- duction, Guelph, Ontario. Vol. 17; 15-18. 396 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND Vol. 5 (1996): 387-397. SELOSTUS Eläinmalliin perustuvien hiehojen odotusarvojen luotettavuus jalostusarvon ennusteena Martin Lidauer ja Esa Mäntysaari Maatalouden tutkimuskeskus Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli tutkia ovatko hiehojen odotusarvot (PI) harhaisia ja jos ovat, onko harha eri suuruinen eri hiehoryhmissä. Harhan arvioimiseksi laskettiin kahdet eläinmalliarvostelut kahden eri ai- neiston perusteella. Ensimmäinen aineisto käsitti kaikki 1978-94 poikineiden lehmien kolmen ensim- mäisen tuotantovuoden 305 päivän maito- ja val- kuaistuotostiedot. Toisesta tiedostosta poissuljettiin tuotantotiedot lehmiltä, jotka poikivat ensimmäisen ker- ran maaliskuun 1993 jälkeen, jolloin niiden jalostus- arvoiksi muodostui isän ja emän arvosteluihin perustu- va odotusarvo (PI), Arvostelujen jälkeen kertyi 51 744 Ayrshire-lehmää, joilta oli sekä ensimmäisen tuo- tantovuoden tietoihin perustuva jalostusarvon ennuste (EBV), että karsitusta aineistosta laskettu PI, Tarkas- teltavat eläimet jaettiin kolmeen eri kohderyhmään vanhempiensa perusteella: jälkeläisarvosteltujen kei- nosiemennyssonnien (valiosonnien) tyttäret, arvoste- lemattomien sonnien (nuorsonnien) tyttäret ja sonnin- emätasoisten emien tyttäret. Arvostelujen tuloksien testaamiseen käytettiin kolmea eri menetelmää: t-tes- tiä, lineaarista regressiota EBVistä Piille ja polyno- miaalista regressiota, jossa harhaa EBV-PI selitettiin Piillä. Käytännössä merkittävästi harhaisia olivat vain nuorsonnien tyttärien odotusarvot. Keskimäärin nii- den odotusarvot olivat vääristyneet ylöspäin 0,20 kes- kihajonnan yksikköä eli 78,8 kg maitotuotoksessa, ja 0,21 keskihajonnan yksikköä eli 2,2 kg valkuaistuo- toksessa. Harhan oletettiin johtuvan nuorsonnien emien jalostusarvojen yliarvioinnista, joka aikaisem- missa tutkimuksissa on havaittu eläinmalliarvosteluil- le tyypilliseksi. Sonninemätasoisiksi luokiteltujen lehmien tyttärien odotusarvot tuntuivat ennustavan tyttärien tulevia jalostusarvosteluja melko luotetta- vasti. Tämän arveltiin saattavan johtua erityishuo- miosta, jota karjanomistajat voivat antaa parhaiden lehmiensä tyttärille. Polynomiaalisen regression erittely osoitti, että keskimääräinen harhaisuuden aste muuttui hieman odotusarvon suuruuden mukaan, jos- kin ko. mallin antaman alhaisen selitysasteen perus- teella Piin suuruus ei käytännössä anna merkittävää lisätietoa odotusarvon luotettavuudesta. 397 AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD SCIENCE IN FINLAND